funkyfreddy wrote:Both Republicans and Democrats are for big government.... Democrats generally for increased domestic spending while Republicans love to fund great boondoggles such the "war on terror", "war on drugs", etc.

Both parties couldn't care less about civil liberties and generally look the other way while multi-nationals, banks, and other vampires bleed the US dry....

The lens through which we traditionally view politics need to be taken off.... don't vote for labels.... look at the money first and then try to see who profits from what policies......

That's the best part about RP. He's a genuine guy. Just look at Rand... Gets stopped by the TSA because he sticks to his principles and what he believes in. It's a shame Paul isn't going to win the nomination, he's the only viable candidate who's not going to send us further into debt and strip away more of our liberties.

With the middle East as unstable as it is, Non-intervention(commonly mistaken for isolationism, according to wikipedia) is a bad idea. I have to ask, what have you guys heard along the way of us leaving all that equipment behind in Iraq?

Politics are reduced to a sideshow in this country. The 2012 election might as well be a reality tv series. I love hearing how the GOP promises CHANGE. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so painfully predictable. Someone bump the phonograph, the needle is skipping again on that old, worn out record.

Vice President Joe Biden addressed 87 wealthy Democrats last night attending a fundraiser at the home of Sen. John Kerry in Georgetown. As they dined on grass-fed New York strip steaks and white truffle mashed potatos underneath a outdoor tent, Biden criticized Republicans for being out of touch.

“These guys don’t have a sense of the average folks out there,” Biden said according to the pool report, “They don’t know what it means to be middle class.”

Respecting a man's ability to make his fortune is elitist? Tell that to the candidates who are riding the millions their friends are throwing around to influence the elections in attempts to keep their tax rate just a little bit lower, while they dance around the primaries like caricatures of their former selves.

And besides the candidates, since 2008 lobbyists have spent over 3-BILLION dollars to <s>infect</s>affect political change by our government.

So to play games that a $5000 a plate dinner is the problem is like looking at the Hiroshima nuclear-bomb disaster and worrying about the price of California rolls going up . . . .

Most Legislation is passed either to appease the lobbyists or to win re-election. Our "Democracy" is broken--but here's the scary answer: I've yet to see a better working government system that can work at the scale of the US

More Government: More corruption, money wasted to appease special interest groups, and to get re-elected

Less Government: More corruption, Deregulation will lead us back to the Robber Baron era of the turn of LAST century,

anyone have any better ideas? Newt's Moonbase is lookin better and better all the time

Democracy works best if people are passing laws to re-win elections. That way, we don't have some totalitarian state which does what it wants.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which iswrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the factsthey misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are notwarned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit ofresistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right asto the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lostin a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed fromtime to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.It is its natural manure." -Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith

We may not need a revolution every twenty years. We just need some sort of unifier. Just look at the American Revolution. World War Two. 9/11.

n00less cluebie wrote:It doesn't matter one way or the other, but MONEY is what runs our country--ALL of the candidates are multi-millionaires, 3/4 of our senators a total of 47% of our congressmen are millionaires

Do I smell a Platonist?

But yeah, that's why I always get a kick out of everyone dogging on Mitt Romney for his wealth.

So to play games that a $5000 a plate dinner is the problem is like looking at the Hiroshima nuclear-bomb disaster and worrying about the price of California rolls going up . . . .

Most Legislation is passed either to appease the lobbyists or to win re-election. Our "Democracy" is broken--but here's the scary answer: I've yet to see a better working government system that can work at the scale of the US

More Government: More corruption, money wasted to appease special interest groups, and to get re-elected

Less Government: More corruption, Deregulation will lead us back to the Robber Baron era of the turn of LAST century

Here's a few questions for some of you more knowledgeable peeps around here:

I've read a lot of debate over ObamaCare and how the individual mandate is actually better for private insurance than a public option would be, because employers could simply default their employees to the public option to save themselves from the costs of covering a private business plan. This may be off-base, but that looks to me like these "job creators", who Republicans stress should not be taxed at a higher rate because of their ability to trickle wealth down, would in such a case deny insurance companies their business for the sake of their own pockets in response to the tax burden of the national plan. While that does make perfect sense, if I've read the law (only a summary, so I'm not 100% sure) and other articles right, no person or business that employs a certain number of people and offers private insurance plans to their employees will have to pay any penalties as a result of the provisions described in ObamaCare. So my main question here is, what is it about ObamaCare that has people so very afraid of the dangers to private insurance? As long as employers don't try to circumvent the system, they should be able to conduct their business with insurance companies as usual, just with a higher degree of quality because the competition from ObamaCare has to be transparent. If that's correct, then won't we eventually see better coverage from both sides? This is obviously only at the surface of the issue, but I've gotta start somewhere. And who says that either the individual mandate or a public option (should it resurface if/when ObamaCare is repealed) would have to be over-funded enough to break the bank like that? It's only meant for people who can't afford what's already around. I wouldn't trust my life with a policy I didn't sign for unless I had no other choice (in which case, it's better than nothing).

This may be a bad analogy, but I'll give it a shot anyway: It's not as though the public school system has put all private schools completely out of business. Once it was decided that all citizens should have the right to an education, they had the choice between going to a public school or pay more for a private school, which usually has higher standards to go along with the steeper price tag. If anything, private schools have become more prestigious due to their comparison with public schools; I could see the same thing happening with private vs. public health insurance. As public schools started to receive more funding and develop their programs, private schools were given the edge of looking in due to the transparency required by the system and capitalizing on whatever faults were there, having the resources to one-up their competition. Does it bother anyone that you're forced to help pay for schooling for people who may not otherwise be able to afford it?

The way I see it, as our society evolves, our government should have to keep up. The founding fathers are a favorite reference for Republicans who believe that we're heading into a period of over-regulation, but I think that individual liberties are what need to be stressed instead of economic sanctions on big businesses or the wealthy few. I'm part of a younger generation, so I may be a bit naive when I say that more the wealthy should be a bit more thankful and generous on their own towards the country that has allowed them to gain so much. After all, there are plenty of other millionaires who were opposed to the Bush tax cuts (if you couldn't tell already, I'm a big fan of Jon Stewart). As we get richer, we receive the luxury of being able to determine by law what is a human right. With money being thrown around so carelessly in recent years, is it really so anti-American to suggest that we can now afford to include healthcare in the list of our rights rather than privileges?

Also, if everyone's so afraid of higher income taxes, just legalize and tax weed, gambling, and prostitution. Put criminals out of business, legitimize some industries, prevent AIDS, and hire more cops. Boom.

1. Isn't it infringing on your liberties for the government to say you must have health care?

2. Government does very little as well as the private sector. Look at the post office. The bigger the government gets, the more fingers they have in the pie. The more fingers they have in the pie, less things are done well.

3. The top ten percent of income owners pay around 68% of the taxes while the bottom 50% pay around 3%. How much more do you want the wealthiest Americans to pay?

4. "Obamacare": The deficit is already at $16 trillion and obamacare is not paid for. So the debt will keep rising. At some point, this house of cards is going to come crashing down. Giving the States more control over things like healthcare (for example) is a wiser decision in my opinion. Better to have 50 entities taking care of themselves then one entity trying to take care of 50.

Nimrod7 wrote:1. Isn't it infringing on your liberties for the government to say you must have health care?

Fundamentally, sure, that's probably true. But you could make the same argument for just about anything that government does, couldn't you? Paying taxes in general, or getting an education, or even abortion rights.

2. Government does very little as well as the private sector. Look at the post office. The bigger the government gets, the more fingers they have in the pie. The more fingers they have in the pie, less things are done well.

If I'm unable to afford private healthcare, why not just accept what's available? Given the luxury of choice, I'd obviously want to go private. As long as the private sector stays ahead of the government, there's plenty of incentive to stick with them. It still sounds like healthy competition to me.

The post office might not be the best analogy with email/cell phones/etc. changing the way we communicate, but I see where you're going.

3. The top ten percent of income owners pay around 68% of the taxes while the bottom 50% pay around 3%. How much more do you want the wealthiest Americans to pay?

But the proportions are off, with guys like Romney being able to get away with paying just 15%. When we're talking about people with millions to spend manipulating the system in their favor (even if they don't; just that they can), it shouldn't matter if they have to pay a little bit more. If I ever make my fortune, I'll be happy to stand by that sentiment.

4. "Obamacare": The deficit is already at $16 trillion and obamacare is not paid for. So the debt will keep rising. At some point, this house of cards is going to come crashing down. Giving the States more control over things like healthcare (for example) is a wiser decision in my opinion. Better to have 50 entities taking care of themselves then one entity trying to take care of 50.

I'm all for increasing states' power. Money like that is much better suited to people who are more connected to the area.

NWA wrote:But the proportions are off, with guys like Romney being able to get away with paying just 15%.

That 15% is capital gains. He was already taxed once for the money earned and then taxed on what he made on the stock market. The same thing goes for Warren Buffet when he uses his dopy analogy of paying less in taxes then his secretary. She is paying taxes on her salary, while he is paying taxes on money that he has put in the stock market. Apples and oranges.

NWA wrote:it shouldn't matter if they have to pay a little bit more. If I ever make my fortune, I'll be happy to stand by that sentiment.

So my question to you is what should they pay? The richest Americans already pay at least 50% of their income between state, local, and federal taxes. Should they pay 60, 70,90?

NWA wrote:

Nimrod7 wrote:1. Isn't it infringing on your liberties for the government to say you must have health care?

Fundamentally, sure, that's probably true. But you could make the same argument for just about anything that government does, couldn't you? Paying taxes in general, or getting an education, or even abortion rights.

You're going to have to be more specific on this part. 1. The government cannot function without the money it gets from taxes.

2. Getting an education is not forced on anyone by the federal government as far as I know. I'm pretty sure that's State/City enforced.

NWA wrote:But the proportions are off, with guys like Romney being able to get away with paying just 15%.

That 15% is capital gains. He was already taxed once for the money earned and then taxed on what he made on the stock market. The same thing goes for Warren Buffet when he uses his dopy analogy of paying less in taxes then his secretary. She is paying taxes on her salary, while he is paying taxes on money that he has put in the stock market. Apples and oranges.

NWA wrote:it shouldn't matter if they have to pay a little bit more. If I ever make my fortune, I'll be happy to stand by that sentiment.

So my question to you is what should they pay? The richest Americans already pay at least 50% of their income between state, local, and federal taxes. Should they pay 60, 70,90?

That question's definitely out of my league, but from my standpoint, I still believe it's not enough. You'd have to wait for me to take more than a couple basic econ classes to give you an informed answer.

NWA wrote:

Nimrod7 wrote:1. Isn't it infringing on your liberties for the government to say you must have health care?

Fundamentally, sure, that's probably true. But you could make the same argument for just about anything that government does, couldn't you? Paying taxes in general, or getting an education, or even abortion rights.

You're going to have to be more specific on this part. 1. The government cannot function without the money it gets from taxes.

2. Getting an education is not forced on anyone by the federal government as far as I know. I'm pretty sure that's State/City enforced.

3. The federal government is not making women get abortions.

What I mean is that if one wants to suggest that requiring all citizens to have healthcare is an infringement upon civil liberties, then one can't deny that taxes, anti-abortion laws, and requiring all children to go to school would also be considered government infringement. Education, regardless of who enforces it, is still mandatory, but we don't really perceive it as being oppressive (it's almost ironic that education is liberating in itself). If you're well educated, you've got potential in a country that allows more social freedoms than any other. If you're well educated and healthy, shouldn't you have even more potential?

The USPS does get some taxpayer support. Around $96 million is budgeted annually by Congress for the "Postal Service Fund." These funds are used to compensate USPS for postage-free mailing for all legally blind persons and for mail-in election ballots sent from US citizens living overseas. A portion of the funds also pays USPS for providing address information to state and local child support enforcement agencies.

The rest of the operating expenses are covered by the sale of stamps and products/services. Prices are set based on the federally mandate to be revenue neutral.

The reason the post office is currently maligned is due to an act of a republican lame duck congress requiring a funding of pensions for the next 75 years all fully paid over the next 10 (less now) years which took the post office from profitable to revenue neutral into its current status as severely revenue negative as a naked assault on the largest remaining unionized workforce.